rare moment of honesty at work

[BH]

Someone I know had a visit from corporate tell her that when they promote people race and gender are definitely a factor, which I knew and is no big secret. Another thing that was shared with me by her that her corporate visitor said that it was the insurance company that insures a company in case of lawsuits are even more stringent than the government is in making sure so many job and position holders reflect the community the business is in as well as pay scales

None of this comes as a surprise

Here is my question. When a person applies for a job or a promotion why can't the hiring manager be honest that things like this have to be taken into consideration?

I don't question the act of doing such. You do want your business to reflect your community so all will feel welcome. And you do need the insurance. I just question why it is taboo and can't be said that that is the truth behind a lot of hiring and promoting.

 

[bigfield]

Someone I know had a visit from corporate tell her that when they promote people race and gender are definitely a factor, which I knew and is no big secret. Another thing that was shared with me by her that her corporate visitor said that it was the insurance company that insures a company in case of lawsuits are even more stringent than the government is in making sure so many job and position holders reflect the community the business is in as well as pay scales

None of this comes as a surprise

Here is my question. When a person applies for a job or a promotion why can't the hiring manager be honest that things like this have to be taken into consideration?

I don't question the act of doing such. You do want your business to reflect your community so all will feel welcome. And you do need the insurance. I just question why it is taboo and can't be said that that is the truth behind a lot of hiring and promoting.

Because corporations care about PR, and it's not good PR to tell people how the corporare diversity sausage is made.

Actually corporations don't seem to like any transparency around hiring, because anything they reveal gives applicants more bargaining power.

 

[steve_bank]

Back in the day I supported affirmative action. It was controversial to say the least. Minorities lower on the lists for police and fore departments got hired over people who quaffed higher4.

I saw hiring discrimination in the workplace in the 70s 80s. It may still exist, but laws and lawsuits largely put an end to it. Companies became afraid of being labeled racist.

As humans tend to do, getting rid of hiring discrimination became a mandate to show a comp[any is not racist by having a statistical balance. I read Ca mandated that a company above a certain size had to have females at the top. That is wrong, IMO.

The principle of diverse hiring does not always seem to apply to all female, all gay, or all black businesses.

 

[thebeave]

Someone I know had a visit from corporate tell her that when they promote people race and gender are definitely a factor, which I knew and is no big secret. Another thing that was shared with me by her that her corporate visitor said that it was the insurance company that insures a company in case of lawsuits are even more stringent than the government is in making sure so many job and position holders reflect the community the business is in as well as pay scales

None of this comes as a surprise

Here is my question. When a person applies for a job or a promotion why can't the hiring manager be honest that things like this have to be taken into consideration?

I don't question the act of doing such. You do want your business to reflect your community so all will feel welcome. And you do need the insurance. I just question why it is taboo and can't be said that that is the truth behind a lot of hiring and promoting.

I've wondered the same thing. Its certainly an awkward thing to have to admit to a job applicant. Imagine you're a young, smart African American woman who has studied hard, worked hard and made sacrifices in order to excel in life. Then you get hired for a job. Later, you ask the hiring manager, "What was it about my resume and interview that most inspired you to hire me into this position?" And he says, "Well, to be honest, though you are highly qualified, we also had many equally qualified white people apply for this job and we have been looking to fill this position with a PoC. " I imagine most people would think its a little unsettling to learn that they mostly wanted you because you check a diversity box for the company, and not because of the "content of your character".

 

[BH]

Twenty years ago I worked for a now almost defunct retail company that at one time was the largest retailer in the US. Ut's named started with an S. People loved their tools and had a lifetime replacement warranty. Anyway, there were several gentlemen that knew the tool department and the tools like the back of their hand, and the manager of the department position came up. It went to a woman who knew nothing about the department and the three gentlemen were insulted. I know two had previous management experience and within six months had jobs as management at Lowes and another company. The woman lasted year and quit and the third gentleman didnt get it and in fact lost to another woman who knew nothing about the department. He went to work at Lowes for one of the gentlemen who quit earlier Now there were no real tool experts in the department and the young kids or newbies did the best they could but sales tanked From what i understand they stayedbad until the store closed a few tears later.

Looking back, if what happened to those men was a case of having to hire a woman to chech the management position held by a lady box and a woman having a higher box box then if the store manager had been allowed to be honest about it maybe they would gave not gotten so mad abd left The store shot itself in the foot doing it and maybe that could have been avoided.

 

[Elixir]

if what happened to those men was a case of having to hire a woman to chech the management position held by a lady box and a woman having a higher box....

Somebody failed to do the math if that was the case.
I spend too much time trying to break down the benefits of female, Native American, "minority" in general ownership and officership - even Eskimo ownership and officer appointments. At the federal level there was no real benefit; we already had a woman owning almost a third of the Company and serving as COO. There were other companies competing with us that had several points of price advantages, but the only one that was a killer iirc, was Eskimos; You could get some great breaks, but there weren't that many contracts out there. Maybe if you found just the right person... (we never did).

 

[BH]

I figure whoever high up made the decision to hire only a woman, if that was indeed the case, either did not factor in the need the store had of those three men or if they were aware of them thought they had been there so long they would not go work somewhere else because of benefits, wages, ect. not being as good. They proved whoever it was wrong though.

 

[Tigers!]

Someone I know had a visit from corporate tell her that when they promote people race and gender are definitely a factor, which I knew and is no big secret. Another thing that was shared with me by her that her corporate visitor said that it was the insurance company that insures a company in case of lawsuits are even more stringent than the government is in making sure so many job and position holders reflect the community the business is in as well as pay scales

None of this comes as a surprise

Here is my question. When a person applies for a job or a promotion why can't the hiring manager be honest that things like this have to be taken into consideration?

I don't question the act of doing such. You do want your business to reflect your community so all will feel welcome. And you do need the insurance. I just question why it is taboo and can't be said that that is the truth behind a lot of hiring and promoting.

I've wondered the same thing. Its certainly an awkward thing to have to admit to a job applicant. Imagine you're a young, smart African American woman who has studied hard, worked hard and made sacrifices in order to excel in life. Then you get hired for a job. Later, you ask the hiring manager, "What was it about my resume and interview that most inspired you to hire me into this position?" And he says, "Well, to be honest, though you are highly qualified, we also had many equally qualified white people apply for this job and we have been looking to fill this position with a PoC. " I imagine most people would think its a little unsettling to learn that they mostly wanted you because you check a diversity box for the company, and not because of the "content of your character".

Replace PoC with age < N.

 

[Politesse]

If they are honest about all of their "diversity hires", do they have to be honest about all of their "non-diversity" hires as well?

 

[BH]

I know a man by his own admission that he was made vice president of a local company simply because his father was a federal judge and also the man was being groomed for a political career. The people who wanted him to run for a particular office were basically padding his resume so to speak to make him appear more able than he probably was. He decided he did not want that kind of life. Something happened that turned him off that he never shared, and he went on with life. He got married after getting a real job based on his merit and did well anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I figure whoever high up made the decision to hire only a woman, if that was indeed the case, either did not factor in the need the store had of those three men or if they were aware of them thought they had been there so long they would not go work somewhere else because of benefits, wages, ect. not being as good. They proved whoever it was wrong though.

Or they considered the harm from a inferior hire to be less than the harm from the discrimination lawsuits.

Anyway, the reason they can't just tell you is because that would be clear evidence of discrimination. If you had a recorder in your pocket (and in most states that would be legal) and they admitted you were passed over for a DEI hire you would find lawyers lining up to take the case.

It's been a factor for a long time. An incident my mother told me about, probably from the 1940s but she didn't identify the time: (note: she was completely blind.) The manager told her that he thought she could probably do the job but it wasn't safe to hire her if it didn't work out. Not discrimination on being blind, but on the fear of a discrimination claim.

 

[thebeave]

I figure whoever high up made the decision to hire only a woman, if that was indeed the case, either did not factor in the need the store had of those three men or if they were aware of them thought they had been there so long they would not go work somewhere else because of benefits, wages, ect. not being as good. They proved whoever it was wrong though.

Or they considered the harm from a inferior hire to be less than the harm from the discrimination lawsuits.

Anyway, the reason they can't just tell you is because that would be clear evidence of discrimination. If you had a recorder in your pocket (and in most states that would be legal) and they admitted you were passed over for a DEI hire you would find lawyers lining up to take the case.

It's been a factor for a long time. An incident my mother told me about, probably from the 1940s but she didn't identify the time: (note: she was completely blind.) The manager told her that he thought she could probably do the job but it wasn't safe to hire her if it didn't work out. Not discrimination on being blind, but on the fear of a discrimination claim.

Yep. By hiding it, it shows that deep down, they know that its wrong.

 

[BH]

I figure whoever high up made the decision to hire only a woman, if that was indeed the case, either did not factor in the need the store had of those three men or if they were aware of them thought they had been there so long they would not go work somewhere else because of benefits, wages, ect. not being as good. They proved whoever it was wrong though.

Or they considered the harm from a inferior hire to be less than the harm from the discrimination lawsuits.

Anyway, the reason they can't just tell you is because that would be clear evidence of discrimination. If you had a recorder in your pocket (and in most states that would be legal) and they admitted you were passed over for a DEI hire you would find lawyers lining up to take the case.

It's been a factor for a long time. An incident my mother told me about, probably from the 1940s but she didn't identify the time: (note: she was completely blind.) The manager told her that he thought she could probably do the job but it wasn't safe to hire her if it didn't work out. Not discrimination on being blind, but on the fear of a discrimination claim.

Yes, I figured that was the main reason.

Now, you can never really be sure you can trust the feedback you get at work why you didn't get a position. Do you really need to work on this supposed nebulously worded criticism in one area or are they just making up something why you didn't get it when no matter what you were not going to be given it.

 

[BH]

If they are honest about all of their "diversity hires", do they have to be honest about all of their "non-diversity" hires as well?

Good question. "Just a good ol' boy, never meanin' no harm...."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I figure whoever high up made the decision to hire only a woman, if that was indeed the case, either did not factor in the need the store had of those three men or if they were aware of them thought they had been there so long they would not go work somewhere else because of benefits, wages, ect. not being as good. They proved whoever it was wrong though.

Or they considered the harm from a inferior hire to be less than the harm from the discrimination lawsuits.

Anyway, the reason they can't just tell you is because that would be clear evidence of discrimination. If you had a recorder in your pocket (and in most states that would be legal) and they admitted you were passed over for a DEI hire you would find lawyers lining up to take the case.

It's been a factor for a long time. An incident my mother told me about, probably from the 1940s but she didn't identify the time: (note: she was completely blind.) The manager told her that he thought she could probably do the job but it wasn't safe to hire her if it didn't work out. Not discrimination on being blind, but on the fear of a discrimination claim.

Yep. By hiding it, it shows that deep down, they know that its wrong.

Of course they know it's wrong!

It's just liability concerns outweigh doing the right thing.